About your Search

20121226
20121226
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)
removed himself from these discussions. harry reid, president obama, and a little bit of mitch mcconnell. what is possible of making a deal? >> the ball seems to be in mitch mcconnell's court. does he filibuster anything that harry reid ends up making with president obama? we have a paired down legislation extending for income below $250,000 and doing something with unemployment insurance that you were talking about? the question is a senate filibuster, democrats need 60 votes and republican votes, mcconnell ends up filibustering and will there be senators who support the legislation and blocking the filibuster. a lot of gymsmanship and republicans when you lock at the situation in the house and the inability to pass along the other things, they are on the verge of taking a lot of blame if they filibuster the legislation and the house doesn't act on it. >> and only democratic support developing here. how much is he going to agree with the president when he has the election in 2014? some folks don't want to appear in any way too close to president obama right now. >> let's move on in term
, perhaps mitch mcconnell's involved in this, as well. so when we look at this, david, who's pulling the strings now? who will sit down and make the deal happen? >> there's eyes on mitch mcconnell. he's been influential in past debt negotiations. a year and a half ago in sort of coming up with something that his fellow republicans would like and i think the question is, though, as meredith said, john boehner doesn't seem to have full control of his caucus and looking at the house, is boehner comfortable with moving something with a majority of democratic support and some republican support to put it over the threshold. looks like there's a lot of shifting going on about who to blame going over the cliff and probably not a good sign because they're setting up who to blame and might be an inkling to come. >> the votes not on the side of boehner last week, meredith, if there's a bipartisan deal out of the senate, will those who were not for john boehner's plan "b" then agree with a bipartisan bill coming over from the senate? >> does it matter? if you look at the bipartisan agreement th
we know whether president obama spent any time on the phone with mitch mcconnell or john boehner or the republican leaders? that's a good question and has not happened during this holiday vacation. talks between the main players here are largely stalled. there have been conversations at the staff level, but only between democrats at the white house and on the hill. talks between the two parties have largely stalled here. they are going to need to come back and try to find a compromise to avert this potential economic disaster. some analysts are saying that the pressure will be enough to force all sides to come to the table to get that done. that is of course a big question mark that is looming over the next several days. public pressure by the way mounting not only in the polls, you have the coffee chain starbucks waging their own champagne. they have started writing come on the coffee cups assigned to lawmakers to get something done by january 1st. >> we will have more on that later. kristen well k standing in front of a postcard. national political report for real clear politic
's still waiting for john boehner and mitch mcconnell to become decent. of course he doesn't think that. but he knows that he's not mitt romney saying 47% of the country are people that i have nothing to do with and i don't care about. he knows that he's the president of the people of the united states which includes 47 percent ironically who voted for mitt romney. and so you know, you have to be able to say, well, why is the first african american man to run for the office of president not willing to say as he's running for president, "oh, and by the way i believe in gay marriage in 2008." i get it. it's easy to understand that. and if what that means is that i have to wait for the day that a president says, "i believe in same sex marriage," i'm willing to wait. and i waited and he said it. this man believes what we believe and i actually got a chance to say this to him. >> to obama? >> that, you know, lincoln at one point in the lincoln-douglas was disappointed when douglas made a particularly racist speech. he said, "stephen knows better than this. he's blown the moral lights out." a
and mitch mcconnell. seems the house is not in session. johnny isakson, your colleague from georgia said congress should pass the $250,000 and below deal because that's what's going to happen afterwards. do you think that should happen? >> i do not. i think $250,000 is too low a threshold. a lot of working people who are couples would exceed that. however, i talked to some of my democratic colleagues and they are saying maybe in the $400,000 or $500,000 category we could set a benchmark. i do think it is essential that we start talking about what amount can be passed on a bipartisan basis, because, you know, i'm one who believes you shouldn't tax anyone right now. i would have supported plan b. i think that we've got to come to some terms with the impact that this is going to have and remember the other parts of this, making the child tax credit permanent, the marriage penalty relief permanent. these are things that go with any kind of a threshold that we hopefully could agree on. >> but you wouldn't take, for example, the only deal that was out there was the $250,000 or below, you would
saying, quote, nothing to report, no conversations with republicans yet. senate republican leader mitch mcconnell who can filibuster anything reid proposes, a spokesperson saying, quote, no outream from dems. we are waiting on senate democrats. if nothing's done, january 1st, the nation faces a $5 trillion tax increase over ten years through the expiration of the bush tax cuts and assuming congress does not approve the patch anded medicare doc fix, and other things. the lapse of the tax cuts means the top tax rate reverts to 39.6 from 35% now. taxes would also go up for lower income earners. the maximum low rate would revert to 15% from 10% now, and investors see capital gains rate revert from 20%, revert to 20%, rather from 15% now. depending on what analysis you look at, average families could pay $2,000 to $4,000 more in taxes next year. ashley? ashley: that's the why it's called the cliff. thank you, peter. >> you bet. ashley: the speaker stuck in a storm, but the phones do work. bell ringing soon, and amazon known for customer service, especially over the holidays, but it's not car
. no conversations with republicans yet. said republican leader mitch mcconnell, quote, no our reach for many democrats. we talk to the speaker's office all the time and always do but the house passed legislation and we are waiting on senate democrats. house speaker john boehner, quote, nothing new and from democratic leader of the house nancy pelosi, her spokesperson saying, quote, i don't know anything right now. as of now the cliff remains clearly in sight. if nothing is done on january 1st, the nation faces a $5 trillion tax increase over ten years through the expiration of a george bush tax cuts and assuming congress does not approve its annual patch for the alternative minimum tax and medicare doc fix that prevents deep cuts in medicare the laps of the tax cuts would mean the top tax rate would revert back to 39.6 in the clinton administration from 35% now but taxes will also go up for tax rates would go up for lower-income earners. the maximum lowest rate reverting to 15% from 10% and for investors capital gains rates would revert to 20% from 15% and depending on the analysis the avera
as mitch mcconnell brokered a deal finally to resolve that hammer against your head torture that republicans were suffering along with the country during the fiscal cliff deal in 2011, that same thing is going to happen if we go over the cliff. republicans don't want to sustain anymore damage to their brand. they've been under water in our nbc/wall street journal poll six straight years and pay a price for that. >> john harwood, thank you for your reporting from washington. >>> after the break, there have been dozens of gun-related deaths since the sandy hook massacre and the nra is still doubling down on its plan to add more guns to schools. >> if it's crazy to call for putting police and armed security in our school to protect our children, then call me crazy. >> that's the wrong debate to have if you want to talk about protecting our children. >> well, this time the nra's remarks could actually be a good thing for more gun regulation. we'll explain why next on "now." [ male announcer ] it's that time of year again. time for citi price rewind. because your daughter really
be a protest vote and make him go to a second ballot. also mitch mcconnell doesn't want his fingerprints on this because he doesn't want to be primaried. so you have these sort of -- shall we say, the lack of courage or ziesh to move on this from mcconnell and boehner, it's directly tied to prospects to serve in current jobs. it's a fascinating subplot. >> i want to pick up on that on something jared was starting to say. some degree we're playing a bit of a game of semantics here. because there's some calculation that the republicans say we go over the cliff and then technically we can be seen as not voting to increase taxes, but we can be seen as voting for cutting taxes once the sort of -- we go over the cliff and we're on the other side of it. am i right about that? >> yeah. it's a very cynical ploy. the idea of the tax automatically reset for everybody. they can say i didn't vote for that. they all go up. and then they can vote to lower taxes for the $250,000 and below households. that's 98% of households. that's a -- that's something like a -- you know, a multi -- that's something l
talking about the house. what is mitch mcconnell thinking in the senate? >> he is a fascinating part of this. first of all, he is probably going to vote against any deal that raises taxes. whether he actively whips against it or lets it go, there is a number of senate republicans who seem open to upper income tax increases. some of the new england moderates, scott brown and susan collins. it doesn't seem like it would be as challenging to get something out of the senate. he is not going to stick his neck out and get something to the senate floor to have the house blow it up. >> marty, we have heard voices saying the same thing. you have tom coal saying we should go long with the tax increases. >> even in the minority. the republicans were 20 votes short. we sometimes forget, that's significant. they were only 20 votes short. nancy pelosi and the democrats, the idea of getting all the democrats to sign and bring the bill to the floor. if you can get 15 it 20 republicans to also sign on, maybe the tom cole types, they say we are not going to get a better deal and we don't want the part
to report. no conversations with republicans yet. senate republican leader mitch mcconnell who can filibuster anything reid proposes, his spokesperson saying quote, no outreach from any dems. we're waiting on senate dems. so, if nothing is done, that means on january 1st, the nation faces about a five trillion dollar tax increase over 10 years through the expiration of the bush tax cuts and assuming congress does not approve its annual patch for the alternative minimum tax and that medicare doc fix that prevents deep cuts in medicare payments. now the lapse of the tax cuts would mean that the top tax rate would revert back to 39.6 from the clinton administration from 35% now but taxes would also go up for lower income earners. the maximum low rate would revert back to 15% from 10% now. the for investors, capital gains rates would revert to 20% from 15% now. depending on the analysis, the average family would pay 2,000 to 4 thou more in taxes next year. back to you guys. tracy: peter we were talking about the protocol. you sent a great little ted it about. you have to explain it to
widespread support from mitch mcconnell and the leadership, but just a few who are maybe retiring, or leaving the senate. >> reporter: that's a great question. first and foremost they would have to be able to swallow the idea that they will effectively vote to raise taxes on the top 2% of americans which most republicans said they do not want to do because they think it is bad for the economy. to answer your question, it is probably the biggest sweetener for republicans and seen some moderate democrats by the way is the estate tax. the estate tax is in place right now at a relatively low threshold. it would go up big time at the end of the year. and that is something that is very important to a lot of republicans. that could be a sweetener. i think probably the best argument the democrats have for some of those republicans is that they don't want to be in the way or they don't want to be responsible in any way for every american's taxes going up, including most importantly the people who really, really need that money, people who just aren't the wealthiest in this country. >> dana bash, six d
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)